Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description clearly discloses what the tool returns (score, risk level, signals, remediation) and its limits (text-level signals only, not a monetisation decision). It does not mention side effects or external calls, but the verb 'check' plus readOnlyHint=false is not contradicted; a small gap remains about whether any state changes occur.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact but information-dense, opening with the purpose and then listing output and limits. No redundancy; the only minor cost is having outputs stated in two places, but this is not waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description supplies the full return contract (score, risk level, signals, remediation). It also gives a usage trigger and a boundary. It lacks edge-case/error behavior, but that is not essential for selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters well, including the 'do not rewrite or summarise' instruction in script_text. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action ('Check a script against YouTube's inauthentic-content expectations') with a clear object and scope. It enumerates exactly what is evaluated (mass-produced/templated/repetitive text) and what is returned (score, risk level, signals with quotes, remediation), making it easy to select.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Names concrete trigger conditions: 'when the user worries about reused content, AI-sounding scripts, or a formulaic channel.' It gives an exclusion ('not a monetisation decision') but does not name an alternative sibling tool explicitly, so an agent must infer which sibling covers monetization.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.